no longer inner circle

Chris Soucy · May 17th, 2007, 12:39 AM

...diving into threads possibly way past their "use by date", but just can't help myself.

Personally, I think the titles are a usefull guide to the calibre of the information you are reading (or should be). Of course, this depends on the way the title is earned, and sheer quantity doesn't mean quality - other on - line forums are the proof of that pudding.

Again, personally, when the term "level playing field" has been mentioned I am utterly perplexed. This business (film/ video/ sound) has nothing "level" about it, but then, neither does any other activity that involves real people doing real stuff. There's always the knows and the know not, the haves and have nots etc etc.

The people at the bottom of the pyramid want to get to the top of that pyamid and want information from people further up to do it. If they can't identify people at a higher level, who do they trust? Are those people always going to be right? Of course not. Right is such a subjective concept with so much on this forum due to the complexities involved.

So, how to identify people on DVinfo who have posted often and are usually right (er, -ish) or at least have made a positive contribution to either a direct question or a theme? If sheer quantity is not the final arbiter, you're left with quality, and the only person who can answer the question "Did this contribution solve/ help with your problem" is the poor prune who's got the problem/ query in the first place. In order for he/ she or it to do that, there has to be a feedback mechanism of some sort , possibly every post has a "usefullness" selector to one side, with viewers able to not comment as it's not relevant, or select from a range of 1 to 10, 1 - no use whatsoever : 10 - solved the problem.

It's not an instant answer, as the database of who gets what ratings will take quite some time to build, but in time those contributers who get consistently high "stars per post" scores will go up the ratings and thus earn their up - market monickers (nicknames).

Hey, it's not perfect, but hey, either am I.

Hope this is worthy of consideration.

Cheers,

Chris

PS. Wouldn't it be a sod if, after all that, the same people ended up back with the same names they have now? Cest la Vie!

Chris Soucy · May 17th, 2007, 01:29 AM

I think this could be simplified mightily. Put a single tick box in every post - the question adjacent is "Did this post teach me something relevant I didn't already know?".

There's your "Star" rating system in a box.

Cheers,

Chris

George Ellis · May 17th, 2007, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Teutsch

Hum, pointless, not to sure about that? But, maybe the names should be changed to something based on each persons level of addiction or conviction? You know, like:

Arrested (Just signed on)

Booked and Printed (verified by the warden)

Convicted and sentenced (hooked and staying)

1-2 year sentence/etc. (based on post volume)

Prison Lawyer (based on value of contribution to the good of the forum)

Lifer! (would not leave if the warden left the door open)

And just make the wranglers Guards!

:)

Just a thought form a new Trustee, well maybe a lifer! According to Bill, I'll qualify for "COOT" in about 8 months.

Mike

I don't know. That would make Chris and wranglers, "Dead Man Walking", right? ;)

Chris Soucy · May 17th, 2007, 07:35 PM

and had some more time to consider the options and comments in previous posts, the more my suggestion to make the "titles" a function of the democratic process seems to make sense.

If you analyse most of the threads (well, the ones I frequent anyway) they (mostly) start with someone asking a question. They finish either with problem solved or new direction indicated. Along the way a good number of people learn things they didn't know they didn't know.

Each one of the people posting/ reading (and learning) is in a position to answer the question "Did I learn something [relevant or not] from this post". If they got the chance to answer that question (just once for each post), it would very quickly become apparent who was posting the replies that mattered to the people that needed it.

As Chris said earlier, even newbies have posted cracking stuff. Conversly there have been a few from "old hands" which seem to have missed the target completely and taken out a handfull of innocent bystanders instead.

So, basically what I'm proposing is the most "level playing field" possible, every poster is judged by every member on the quality of every post. You just can't get fairer than that. No favourites get played, no one can "buy in" to a higher level, no "old boys network" can save you from bad posts. The more posts, the more chances to get voted. The better the posts, the more votes ditto. As for the wranglers, well, no one in their position can hope to be voted "person of the year" and special rules will need to apply - could be something to "put to the committee" in a poll (once options have been mooted).

Yep, gonna have to buy a couple more servers to keep track of which posts have been voted for by whom AND make sure no one can do an 'end run" round the system, but it seems to provide a solution to all the points raised in the thread.

Oh, and yes, I think the posters location, number of posts, joined date AND "Star" rating (title) should go onto every post.

Don't know how Chris is going to take to the prospect of having St Peter replaced at the gates of Heaven by a file server, but hey, stranger things have happened.

Cheers

Chris

Bruce Foreman · May 18th, 2007, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Soucy

and had some more time to consider the options and comments in previous posts, the more my suggestion to make the "titles" a function of the democratic process seems to make sense.

I watched www.packing.org go downhill fast after a user rating system was implemented.

While it's a totally diffrent type of website from this one, it used to be an excellent source of info and discussion on it's targeted issues. Now it's often a place where "children" run rampant.

If the administrators choose to use and assign "titles" or not, what is important to me is that a constant flow of information takes place. But any kind of system where users affect the administrative functions tend to bring some degree of "contentious" behavior.

This is a very interesting and extremely useful site to me.

Chris Soucy · May 19th, 2007, 12:57 AM

I wasn't for one moment suggesting, to continue in the vein of Mike T's analogy, that Chris and all the subordinate Wardens order all the guards off the site, quit, then decamp to the golf club, stopping only to hand the penitentiary master keys to the assembled inmates to let them do whatever they wanted, come what may.

I can't even see where my proposal even suggests that any administrative functions are surrendered by anyone to anyone.

My starting point was and is that, in this thread, Chris and others have expressed (stop me if I have misinterpreted anything anyone has written) dissatisfaction at the value/ meaning of the labels attached to high post contributors.

Being a firm "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" type, and personally thinking that some type of acknowledgement of the "worth" of a contributor is "a good thing", I was merely suggesting a way to improve the system of rewarding merit rather than scrap the entire label system entirely.

I have no knowledge of the web site you mentioned, what it was like, what was changed, nor it's effects, but the last thing I want to see is DVinfo change drastically, unless it's for the better.

I'm neither a behavioral (?) phsycologist, nor an expert at chat room web systems, so I have no idea whether my idea even has a snowballs chance of working, downhill with a following wind. It's an idea, nothing more, nothing less.

The more I see on this site, it is apparent that Chris has taken it from strength to strength by NOT making stupid decisions. But, decisions can't be made in a vacuum (tho' my missus has her doubts about some of mine) and I wasn't aware that my suggestion had been made by anyone else.

So, sorry if you were under the impression I was suggesting letting the "patients" run the "asylum", I weren't.

BUT - it would be nice if the labels measured quality, not quantity.

And another thing......there must be an awefull lot of contributors on this site(again, stop me if you've all been there, done that) with qualifications, industry experience as long as your arm (and leg in some cases) etc etc etc. Now (here's that hot water again) what about doing a section on just who some of these contributors are, what they've done etc etc. I don't know, you see a posting from Joe Blogs, click on his name in the post and it takes you to a three page summary of his Academy Awards etc. Feeling suitably humbled, you take every written word as Gospel ( I jest).

Just a thought. Start sharpening chain saws - now!

Cheers

Chris

Adam Palomer · May 20th, 2007, 01:31 AM

Can I have dibs on "The Decider"?

Mathieu Ghekiere · May 20th, 2007, 03:39 AM

I would vote to keep the titles. Sometimes it's a nice information of someone, it's not something I really keep in mind or pay attention to, but it's nice to have.
I wouldn't vote for a user ratings system. I think that would become a mess much too quickly.

It wouldn't be a disaster if the titles dissapear, but if I could choose, I would rather have them.

Jasmine Marie Adams · June 19th, 2007, 04:59 PM

From the point of a totsl noob, I have barely noticed the titles. I'm on several message boards accross the place and tend to judge people on what they say rather than how often they say it. I don't think a rating system is the answer - I think titles aren't a good idea at all, unless it actually tells me something about the person.

Location was one of the suggestions, which is limitedly useful. Honestly,I don't know what would be useful at all.

When someone 'takes out innocent bystanders' there's usually several people willing to get everyone on track. No one seems too hesitant to point out that a particular piece of advice was a little on the dodgy side.

Are professionals really encouraged by the title? So a tiny piece of text is more rewarding than knowing you've helped someone else? I'm not sure such encouragement is necessary.

But then, I am at the bottom of the pyramid. What do I know?

May 17th, 2007, 12:39 AM	#31
Chris Soucy Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Fairfield, Dunedin, New Zealand Posts: 3,693 Images: 18	Seem to be making a habit of this..... ...diving into threads possibly way past their "use by date", but just can't help myself. Personally, I think the titles are a usefull guide to the calibre of the information you are reading (or should be). Of course, this depends on the way the title is earned, and sheer quantity doesn't mean quality - other on - line forums are the proof of that pudding. Again, personally, when the term "level playing field" has been mentioned I am utterly perplexed. This business (film/ video/ sound) has nothing "level" about it, but then, neither does any other activity that involves real people doing real stuff. There's always the knows and the know not, the haves and have nots etc etc. The people at the bottom of the pyramid want to get to the top of that pyamid and want information from people further up to do it. If they can't identify people at a higher level, who do they trust? Are those people always going to be right? Of course not. Right is such a subjective concept with so much on this forum due to the complexities involved. So, how to identify people on DVinfo who have posted often and are usually right (er, -ish) or at least have made a positive contribution to either a direct question or a theme? If sheer quantity is not the final arbiter, you're left with quality, and the only person who can answer the question "Did this contribution solve/ help with your problem" is the poor prune who's got the problem/ query in the first place. In order for he/ she or it to do that, there has to be a feedback mechanism of some sort , possibly every post has a "usefullness" selector to one side, with viewers able to not comment as it's not relevant, or select from a range of 1 to 10, 1 - no use whatsoever : 10 - solved the problem. It's not an instant answer, as the database of who gets what ratings will take quite some time to build, but in time those contributers who get consistently high "stars per post" scores will go up the ratings and thus earn their up - market monickers (nicknames). Hey, it's not perfect, but hey, either am I. Hope this is worthy of consideration. Cheers, Chris PS. Wouldn't it be a sod if, after all that, the same people ended up back with the same names they have now? Cest la Vie!

May 17th, 2007, 01:29 AM	#32
Chris Soucy Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Fairfield, Dunedin, New Zealand Posts: 3,693 Images: 18	With the benefit of a glass or two of good NZ vino.... I think this could be simplified mightily. Put a single tick box in every post - the question adjacent is "Did this post teach me something relevant I didn't already know?". There's your "Star" rating system in a box. Cheers, Chris Last edited by Chris Soucy; May 17th, 2007 at 01:32 AM. Reason: Vino

May 17th, 2007, 07:35 PM	#34
Chris Soucy Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Fairfield, Dunedin, New Zealand Posts: 3,693 Images: 18	Having re - visited this thread in the cold light of day... and had some more time to consider the options and comments in previous posts, the more my suggestion to make the "titles" a function of the democratic process seems to make sense. If you analyse most of the threads (well, the ones I frequent anyway) they (mostly) start with someone asking a question. They finish either with problem solved or new direction indicated. Along the way a good number of people learn things they didn't know they didn't know. Each one of the people posting/ reading (and learning) is in a position to answer the question "Did I learn something [relevant or not] from this post". If they got the chance to answer that question (just once for each post), it would very quickly become apparent who was posting the replies that mattered to the people that needed it. As Chris said earlier, even newbies have posted cracking stuff. Conversly there have been a few from "old hands" which seem to have missed the target completely and taken out a handfull of innocent bystanders instead. So, basically what I'm proposing is the most "level playing field" possible, every poster is judged by every member on the quality of every post. You just can't get fairer than that. No favourites get played, no one can "buy in" to a higher level, no "old boys network" can save you from bad posts. The more posts, the more chances to get voted. The better the posts, the more votes ditto. As for the wranglers, well, no one in their position can hope to be voted "person of the year" and special rules will need to apply - could be something to "put to the committee" in a poll (once options have been mooted). Yep, gonna have to buy a couple more servers to keep track of which posts have been voted for by whom AND make sure no one can do an 'end run" round the system, but it seems to provide a solution to all the points raised in the thread. Oh, and yes, I think the posters location, number of posts, joined date AND "Star" rating (title) should go onto every post. Don't know how Chris is going to take to the prospect of having St Peter replaced at the gates of Heaven by a file server, but hey, stranger things have happened. Cheers Chris

May 19th, 2007, 12:57 AM	#36
Chris Soucy Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Fairfield, Dunedin, New Zealand Posts: 3,693 Images: 18	Sorry Bruce........... I wasn't for one moment suggesting, to continue in the vein of Mike T's analogy, that Chris and all the subordinate Wardens order all the guards off the site, quit, then decamp to the golf club, stopping only to hand the penitentiary master keys to the assembled inmates to let them do whatever they wanted, come what may. I can't even see where my proposal even suggests that any administrative functions are surrendered by anyone to anyone. My starting point was and is that, in this thread, Chris and others have expressed (stop me if I have misinterpreted anything anyone has written) dissatisfaction at the value/ meaning of the labels attached to high post contributors. Being a firm "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" type, and personally thinking that some type of acknowledgement of the "worth" of a contributor is "a good thing", I was merely suggesting a way to improve the system of rewarding merit rather than scrap the entire label system entirely. I have no knowledge of the web site you mentioned, what it was like, what was changed, nor it's effects, but the last thing I want to see is DVinfo change drastically, unless it's for the better. I'm neither a behavioral (?) phsycologist, nor an expert at chat room web systems, so I have no idea whether my idea even has a snowballs chance of working, downhill with a following wind. It's an idea, nothing more, nothing less. The more I see on this site, it is apparent that Chris has taken it from strength to strength by NOT making stupid decisions. But, decisions can't be made in a vacuum (tho' my missus has her doubts about some of mine) and I wasn't aware that my suggestion had been made by anyone else. So, sorry if you were under the impression I was suggesting letting the "patients" run the "asylum", I weren't. BUT - it would be nice if the labels measured quality, not quantity. And another thing......there must be an awefull lot of contributors on this site(again, stop me if you've all been there, done that) with qualifications, industry experience as long as your arm (and leg in some cases) etc etc etc. Now (here's that hot water again) what about doing a section on just who some of these contributors are, what they've done etc etc. I don't know, you see a posting from Joe Blogs, click on his name in the post and it takes you to a three page summary of his Academy Awards etc. Feeling suitably humbled, you take every written word as Gospel ( I jest). Just a thought. Start sharpening chain saws - now! Cheers Chris Last edited by Chris Soucy; May 19th, 2007 at 12:59 AM. Reason: Forgot the Cheers!

May 20th, 2007, 03:39 AM	#38
Mathieu Ghekiere Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,195	I would vote to keep the titles. Sometimes it's a nice information of someone, it's not something I really keep in mind or pay attention to, but it's nice to have. I wouldn't vote for a user ratings system. I think that would become a mess much too quickly. It wouldn't be a disaster if the titles dissapear, but if I could choose, I would rather have them. __________________ http://productionsofthe3rdkind.com http://pr3k.com

May 20th, 2007, 01:31 AM	#37
Adam Palomer Regular Crew Join Date: May 2006 Location: Summit, NJ Posts: 169	Can I have dibs on "The Decider"?

June 19th, 2007, 04:59 PM	#39
Jasmine Marie Adams New Boot Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Perth Western Australia Posts: 38	From the point of a totsl noob, I have barely noticed the titles. I'm on several message boards accross the place and tend to judge people on what they say rather than how often they say it. I don't think a rating system is the answer - I think titles aren't a good idea at all, unless it actually tells me something about the person. Location was one of the suggestions, which is limitedly useful. Honestly,I don't know what would be useful at all. When someone 'takes out innocent bystanders' there's usually several people willing to get everyone on track. No one seems too hesitant to point out that a particular piece of advice was a little on the dodgy side. Are professionals really encouraged by the title? So a tiny piece of text is more rewarding than knowing you've helped someone else? I'm not sure such encouragement is necessary. But then, I am at the bottom of the pyramid. What do I know?